Future Directions - Features

Command Ops: Battles From The Bulge takes the highly acclaimed Airborne Assault engine back to the West Front for the crucial engagements during the Ardennes Offensive. Test your command skills in the fiery crucible of Airborne Assault’s “pausable continuous time” uber-realistic game engine. It's up to you to develop the strategy, issue the orders, set the pace, and try to win the laurels of victory in the cold, shadowy Ardennes.
Command Ops: Highway to the Reich brings us to the setting of one of the most epic and controversial battles of World War II: Operation Market-Garden, covering every major engagement along Hell’s Highway, from the surprise capture of Joe’s Bridge by the Irish Guards a week before the offensive to the final battles on “The Island” south of Arnhem.

Moderators: Arjuna, Panther Paul

User avatar
johndoesecond
Posts: 964
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:53 pm

RE: Future Directions - Features

Post by johndoesecond »

ORIGINAL: freeboy

I find myself repeatedly givingthe same set of clicks, no rest, etc.. as I push my weary troops at night to meet the needs.. can we fix a default settignthe user creats for these orders?
For myself I am always clicking off straglers.. basing, and less rest?? thanks

Hm, unchecking stragglers is not exactly the way to push your troops. Remember, if you uncheck it, you're actually telling the HQ to wait for all the others before moving on (or attacking, or whatever you're ordering it to do). If some of these "others" are weary, tired, routed or delayed, the whole battlegroup will wait for them.
User avatar
wodin
Posts: 10709
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

RE: Future Directions - Features

Post by wodin »

I foudnat first I was giving my troops no let up and stoping them fro rest....thinking it will all happen quicker...I was wrong...I learned to make sure they bed down at night (Keep back a reserve if you want to carry on an attack at night) and carry on the attack in the morning or rotate my troops instead of sending them all in for days on end...this way i found alot more got done than when I was sending everyone I had into attack for days on end...force management is a discipline you need to learn with this game..no other game running in realtime\continous time requires this so it's hard to remember and discipline yourself.
Phoenix100
Posts: 2922
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 12:26 pm

RE: Future Directions - Features

Post by Phoenix100 »

This might be a silly suggestion, but is there any chance of making things even more realistic by limiting friendly info too? Combined with situating the player as, for example, the on map boss, whichever rank that is, so that the player only gets the info the highest ranking commander would actually get in real life. I suppose I'm thinking of something like the gradations of enemy info that are presently available applied to friendlies too. I wondered, Arjuna, whether or not with your professional applications, for the real-life military, whether they wouldn't find it like command christmas (and a little unrealistic) to be given God's-eye access to data about the precise position of all their units in real time. Surely that doesn't happen? In real life you're sitting there, I assume, with a staff and, basically, a map (however techinical and sophisticated) which is updated as and when there is contact with units?

Whilst I'm here, is there any word as to when the HTTR add-on for BFTB will be available. I am really keen to BUY it!! Yes, and quite happy to pay for the product, since, to the best of my (perhaps limited) knowledge this is the ONLY game in the strat (or tactical, for that matter) genre that has AI that comes even near to realism. It's the only game where you don't command every single unit, and I'll pay for that very happily. It's an amazing game. Really.

Thanks.
User avatar
parmenio
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:02 am
Location: United Kingdom

RE: Future Directions - Features

Post by parmenio »

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Whilst I'm here, is there any word as to when the HTTR add-on for BFTB will be available. I am really keen to BUY it!!

Don't worry - you're not alone! My credit card's out on Day 1 [:D]

BTW - I think it's maybe due for a March/April release? (Someone can confirm)
Andy Edmiston
WDS Lead Programmer
User avatar
simovitch
Posts: 5760
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:01 pm

RE: Future Directions - Features

Post by simovitch »

ORIGINAL: parmenio

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Whilst I'm here, is there any word as to when the HTTR add-on for BFTB will be available. I am really keen to BUY it!!

Don't worry - you're not alone! My credit card's out on Day 1 [:D]

BTW - I think it's maybe due for a March/April release? (Someone can confirm)
March or April is probably a good bet. All 12 scenarios are completed and are in beta testing.
simovitch

tyrspawn
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 5:08 am
Contact:

RE: Future Directions - Features

Post by tyrspawn »

Please add the ability to mod faction-specific sounds. I am not asking for you to provide said sounds, just to allow modders to do it. I would like to create a sound mod which has unique, high-quality sounds so that the "heavyMG" of both sides doesn't sound identical. Simply checking for suffixed "axis" or "allies" files in the sound folders and then using them instead of the stock sounds would be great.

Another thing i'd like to see, although I don't expect it to happen, is an option to toggle topographic rings on the map, or a different visual mode. Even after playing the AA-series for this long, I still don't really understand how the maps work, where is high and low elevation etc. I can't eyeball it, I always have to use the map tools and just measure a few things until I can figure out what i'm looking at. I'd also appreciate point altitude reference points (aka "hill #")
- Chris Krause
chamberlain
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:21 am

RE: Future Directions - Features

Post by chamberlain »


Lots of posts have asked for various 3D capabilities or tactical levels to BFTB. I say, leave BFTB to do what it does best: 2D operational level wargaming. It's very realistic at this level.

BUT INSTEAD: Make BFTB data more exportable and compatible for those who might want to use it as a scenario-generator / operational layer for tactical wargames that do tactical 3D gaming better: the upcoming Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy, for example.
User avatar
Deathtreader
Posts: 1057
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:49 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada.

RE: Future Directions - Features

Post by Deathtreader »

Hi all,

Something I think would be kind of cool (and is therefore sure to be a programming nightmare) is the capability to obtain in-scenario optional but necessarily conditional reinforcements during play. Kind of like what SSG's latest offerings allow for in using "alert" units.
These would only be offered to the player to help stave off imminent disaster or to reward collapsing the enemy front and facilitating subsequent exploitation. Naturally they would cost a hefty number of VP's if chosen but not so many as to nullify their usefullness.

What do others think??

Rob.[&o]

So we're at war with the Russkies eh?? I suppose we really ought to invade or something. (Lonnnng pause while studying the map)
Hmmmm... big place ain't it??
- Sir Harry Flashman (1854)
Lieste
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:50 am

RE: Future Directions - Features

Post by Lieste »

Some form of scripting, especially for the victory location expiration/activation would be welcome. Currently the victory locations serve not only to 'reward' the player, but also to drive the overall direction of the action...

eg a river defence - if the defender is doing well at holding the crossing points, defeating any bridgeheads and is still 'safe' after 3 days, it makes no sense to abandon this position to take up 'blocking' positions on the roads further back. On the other hand, a successful bridgehead in the first hours may make the river untenable on the first day, with attempts to hold it, rather than withdrawing to blocking positions immediately risking isolation and destruction of much of the forces committed.
The scenario designer cannot predict with any degree of accuracy how long it will take to achieve any single objective - so much depends on local successes at a critical moment that 'a guess' is all that is feasible, and even carefully planned operations will change if the player chooses a significant alteration to the designers' normal style.

Also important are the above mentioned 'optional' reinforcements, and even the possibility to return 'exited' formations using their final strength (augmented or diminished by some designer specified amount possible). - Currently it is possible to exit the 2/2 infantry, and then re-enter a 'similar' formation also named 2/2 infantry, but they have no relationship, and the losses suffered are not (obviously ;) ) carried across.

The final piece that would make the engine capable of much more would be the inclusion of personnel replacements, and recovery/replacement of damaged/destroyed vehicles and guns - particularly for 10-20 day scenarios. IMO, the most important 'rebuild' would be the re-creation of a scratch HQ and Supply formation if the originals are lost, but the bulk of the combat troops are still active.
User avatar
Arjuna
Posts: 17768
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

RE: Future Directions - Features

Post by Arjuna »

Lieste,

All good suggestions. Thanks.
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com
User avatar
Arjuna
Posts: 17768
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

RE: Future Directions - Features

Post by Arjuna »

Rob,

I like your idea re the conditional reinforcements too. [:)]
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com
OlegHasky
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:32 am
Location: Hamburg

RE: Future Directions - Features

Post by OlegHasky »

Yes, all interesting. ..excluding 3d

Heres another one on the pile..
Merging units / liquid management of inner stuctures

Assigning/transfering equipment to alow the creation of specific task forces in the game.

Well known practice in military - not reflected in btfb.

The level of command given in the game is high enough for such actions.
And without such option, player is limited to base/stone structures.

Still a ferrari without it.. But still in prototype phase.
Time Elapsed.
Lieste
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:50 am

RE: Future Directions - Features

Post by Lieste »

Reworking the map coding to allow more than the current 16 height levels. This would make it easier to build consistent, joinable/splittable maps in higher relief areas, as you could use a globally valid common height distribution. It would also be worth (IMO) automating the import of externally generated contour shapefiles - eg those generated in a few seconds from an SRTM cell using Global Mapper - of course an alternative to contoured height maps would be a height field/DEM, with the contours only provided for player information/visuals, but editing tools for vector features are easier to understand for the end user.

You might need support for depressions built in as the automated outputs won't 'know' the requirements to keep a nominal channel to keep lower areas 'external'.

It seems difficult to currently define good valleys in areas of steep relief, as the narrow segments (which may only be a few metres lower than the nominal value for the valley), become hugely deep & steep - see the south-central portion of the COTA Thermopylai map for an example, and hills which are steep but low are poorly represented, except in areas which are generally of low relief.

Now, I know that SRTM (in all it's variants) has some issues with quality, but it would still represent an improvement in most ways over the current labour intensive map generation.

To get the most benefit, the AI might need some re-work, and the ideal force size would probably be smaller eg platoon? (so most units would occupy only a few cells), but I understand this is on the cards for the Military version anyway.

(Sometimes the presence of a small knoll on a high plateau has importance far in advance of the generally larger hills that channel the fighting - often these micro-features vanish completely if they don't cross a contour, or get misplaced where a smaller/less usefully placed feature does, but the tactically important terrain falls entirely within a contour interval).

As I understand it, the terrain engine already deforms the 'ideal' contour derived DEM, to provide a per-cell height, it seems logical to just stream-line the procedure to get these 'real-world' values in, with a more consistent and easier method.
Lieste
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:50 am

RE: Future Directions - Features

Post by Lieste »

More options for scenario design -

Ability to specify the ammunition loads by weapon - so expend all HE artillery ammunition, without depleting small-arms, or AT weapons (or vice versa).

Ability to depress the starting morale etc, but to have it recover - currently the starting value is also used as the unit ceiling. A good quality unit 'bashed about a bit' and in need of a rest can't be adequately simulated - either it starts as a good quality unit, or it is permanently crippled - the same degree of damage caused in action within the scenario duration would be mostly recovered within a day or so of rest.

Ability to specify ammunition re-supply availability by type (at least HE artillery, AP artillery, HE tank/AT, AP tank/AT, Mor, Small-arms) but preferably by individual types - both available/not available and also specific quantities/weights - have this by SEP, but also holdings at each base. This information is 'gathered'/used during the supply determination, to fix the base requirements, but it is then discarded, causing all sorts of problems with artillery emptying bases of all ammunition, the vast quantities of 'weight' available translating into huge numbers of artillery missions etc... The calculated 'requirements' could be presented to guide the scenario designer, and during play the usage would remain automated as now, but more weapons types would more frequently be operating on low supplies, without entirely depleting the entire supply chain.



User avatar
Arjuna
Posts: 17768
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

RE: Future Directions - Features

Post by Arjuna »

Lieste,

The military would agree with all your suggestions. However, I doubt the users here give too much concern. But I am willing to be surprised. [:)]
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com
US87891
Posts: 422
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 1:31 pm

RE: Future Directions - Features

Post by US87891 »

I like very mush the re-creation of scratch supply formations.

I think company level would be the most appropriate echelon for wargaming purposes.

Regards. Mat
Lieste
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:50 am

FLOT/FEBA/Supply/Ownership et al

Post by Lieste »

Improving the AI's awareness of 'indian country'.

I set an attack down a track, and hit the enemy from his flank. The attack goes well, but supplies run short.
The initial route is secure, and the supplies could easily reach the attacking formation by following the tracks of the tanks... but instead they drive down the main road, through the town (objective) and get slaughtered...

Worse... the attack on the town is planned, all the formations are arranged around it. Artillery to the rear etc. Each major formation is given 'its bite' of the perimeter to grab... and the HQ/artillery/supply gets routed by the AI through the city to 'hit it from the flank...'. Arrgh.... that isn't a valid route - the whole 'bit I don't occupy' is crawling with enemies... especially the bits near all the objectives...

When planning, I personally reckon on 7 main zones...
What I definitely own.
What he definitely/probably owns - intel reports/instinct about old reports/strongpoints & objectives.
What I think I control - behind my FLOT, except where I think we are intermixed, or he can observe/fire.
What I think he controls - behind his FLOT, plus pocketed troops/bypassed uncleared woods/towns etc.
Bits I control, but he prevents me using (by fire, observation etc).
Bits I assume he controls, but I can fire into, or clearly observe - I can't see everything, but can detect firing or large movements, sufficient to bring at least IDF assets to bear.
No-mans-land. Not under either player's control (AFAICT - at least not mine..) in practice treated like 'his control' but more likely to contain unpleasant surprises - mostly because the frequency of 'normal contacts' is lower, and everyone is busier elsewhere or not paying proper attention. (Really I should know better - I really like finding his floating flank(s), but get carried away and seem to forget mine [8|])

The 'what I think I control' includes all the other portions I assume are under my control, both those I know are 'clear' (ie under unit footprints and not contested, plus areas swept by unit footprints, and continuously observed since...), and those also areas 'cleared' by moving through/near them without contact, or unobserved for some period since, usually night/poor weather, or by moving combat formations away - plus those areas putatively on my side of the FLOT near the scenario start. After a few days, this is reassessed according to situation - I might fear a turned flank, infiltration or breakthrough, and downgrade my own rear areas to 'unknown', except where obviously still 'clear'.

By contrast, the AI seems to permanently assume the enemy only occupies those areas where current/recent contacts are shown, and the entire 'rest of the map' is free. A little more paranoia wouldn't go amiss, this is supposed to be a war.
User avatar
wodin
Posts: 10709
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

RE: Future Directions - Features

Post by wodin »

ORIGINAL: Lieste

More options for scenario design -

Ability to specify the ammunition loads by weapon - so expend all HE artillery ammunition, without depleting small-arms, or AT weapons (or vice versa).

Ability to depress the starting morale etc, but to have it recover - currently the starting value is also used as the unit ceiling. A good quality unit 'bashed about a bit' and in need of a rest can't be adequately simulated - either it starts as a good quality unit, or it is permanently crippled - the same degree of damage caused in action within the scenario duration would be mostly recovered within a day or so of rest.

Ability to specify ammunition re-supply availability by type (at least HE artillery, AP artillery, HE tank/AT, AP tank/AT, Mor, Small-arms) but preferably by individual types - both available/not available and also specific quantities/weights - have this by SEP, but also holdings at each base. This information is 'gathered'/used during the supply determination, to fix the base requirements, but it is then discarded, causing all sorts of problems with artillery emptying bases of all ammunition, the vast quantities of 'weight' available translating into huge numbers of artillery missions etc... The calculated 'requirements' could be presented to guide the scenario designer, and during play the usage would remain automated as now, but more weapons types would more frequently be operating on low supplies, without entirely depleting the entire supply chain.





Probably going for to much micro management here for me...I'd just get confused by all the options...I'd rather all this be done by the staff and depending on how good the staff are depends on how well managed the supply\ammo is for the particular unit...great staff means the supply is automatically done as above to it's optimum...lower the staff level the more waste comes into play...
Lieste
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:50 am

RE: Future Directions - Features

Post by Lieste »

This is more for the AI supply management as set by the Designer, rather than player control during the scenario, or at least that was my original thinking...
In play it would work the same, but the AI might be rationing more types of ammunition, while having plentiful supplies of others.
User avatar
wodin
Posts: 10709
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

RE: Future Directions - Features

Post by wodin »

ORIGINAL: Lieste
Currently the victory locations serve not only to 'reward' the player, but also to drive the overall direction of the action...




Which is what I love about this game...I can formulate a plan going by the objectives and when they come on\off etc etc....I wouldn't want this to chnage at all....it really is a masisve help to me at the start...without it I'd probably not play it gain...I'd just boot up a scenario...look at it...look more...get a headache and quit...witht he objectives I can see where I need to be and roughly what direction to go in...then it's upto me to formulate the plan in greater detail and work out how I need to assign my forces...
Post Reply

Return to “Command Ops Series”